LAWS(CAL)-2024-2-152

ECGC LIMITED Vs. MITTAL TECHNOPACK PRIVATE LIMITED

Decided On February 08, 2024
Ecgc Limited Appellant
V/S
Mittal Technopack Private Limited Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Dhruba Ghosh, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Soumajit Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent and Sri Soumya Majumder, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Debraj Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents / writ petitioners.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the respondents / writ petitioners took a Multi-buyer Exposure Policy No. MBE0050008485 which was issued by the appellants to the respondents / writ petitioners on 16/1/2012 covering the period commencing from 28/12/2011 to 27/12/2012, for an aggregate loss limit of Rs.5.00 crore. The Insurance Premium was Rs.9,10,000.00 but its payment was to made in four equal quarterly instalments of Rs.2,27,500.00 each, falling due on 28/12/2011, 28/3/2012, 28/6/2012 and 28/9/2012. The third instalment which fell due on 28/6/2012 was not deposited in time by the respondents / writ petitioners. A shipment was made by the respondents / writ petitioners on 27/7/2012 to one M/s. Techpack Tanzania Limited, but the consignment was neither received by the consignee nor its payment was made. Therefore, the respondents / writ petitioners submitted an application dtd. 20/11/2012 before the appellant/respondent for permission for re-import of the shipment dtd. 27/7/2012. Approval to the aforesaid request was granted by the appellant/respondent by a letter dtd. 29/11/2012, subject to terms of the policy and verification. Subsequently, the respondents / writ petitioners made payment of third instalment on 3/12/2012 and the last instalment on 6/12/2012, which both were accepted by the appellant without any objection. Thereafter, the respondents / writ petitioners lodged a claim on 25/4/2013 which was rejected by the appellant/respondent on 15/5/2013 on two grounds, as under:-

(3.) Against the aforesaid rejection, the respondents / writ petitioners submitted representations including the representation dtd. 23/12/2013. The representation was rejected by the competent authority by order dtd. 24/3/2014, as under:-